Justice Obiora Egwuatu of the Federal High Court in Abuja has ruled against a suit seeking the dismissal of Mr. Ola Olukoyode, the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). The judgement was rendered on Wednesday in a case identified as FHC/ABJ/CS/1403/2023, which was initiated by Abuja-based legal practitioner Mr. Victor Opatola.
The case challenged the legitimacy of Olukoyode’s appointment by President Bola Tinubu, asserting it did not comply with the requirements set forth in the EFCC Act of 2004. The EFCC is one of Nigeria’s primary agencies tasked with combating corruption and financial crimes.
Plaintiff’s Arguments Against Olukoyode
In the suit, the President of Nigeria, the National Assembly, the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), and Olukoyede were listed as the first to fourth respondents, respectively. Opatola’s main contention was centered on the interpretation of Section 2 (1) (a) of the EFCC Act 2004. He argued that Olukoyede’s appointment was invalid because it did not meet the specified criteria outlined in the Act.
According to Section 2 (a) (ii) of the EFCC Act 2004, the Chairman of the Commission must be a serving or retired member of any government security or law enforcement agency, holding a rank not below that of an Assistant Commissioner of Police or its equivalent. Additionally, the appointee must possess a minimum of 15 years of cognate experience in the relevant field.
Opatola emphasized that Olukoyode, at the time of his appointment, did not meet the requisite 15 years of cognate experience in any field, thereby rendering his appointment as the EFCC chairman invalid.
In his plea to the court, Opatola sought a declaration that Olukoyode’s appointment violated the stipulations of the EFCC Act and, as such, should be nullified. He further argued that the appointment process did not follow the legal framework designed to ensure that the head of such a crucial anti-graft agency possesses the necessary qualifications and experience to effectively lead the fight against corruption.
Court’s Decision
Despite these arguments, Justice Obiora Egwuatu dismissed the suit, effectively upholding Olukoyode’s appointment as the Chairman of the EFCC. The dismissal of the case indicates the court’s position that the appointment of Olukoyode was consistent with the legal requirements or that any deviation was not sufficient to warrant his removal from office.
This ruling is significant as it maintains the status quo within the EFCC, allowing Olukoyode to continue his tenure as chairman. The decision also sets a precedent regarding the interpretation of the EFCC Act, particularly concerning the qualifications required for the leadership of the commission.
“A declaration that pursuant to Section 2(1)(a) (ii)(iii) of the EFCC Act, the appointment of Olukoyede to the office of the EFCC chairman is illegal and void.
“A declaration that pursuant to Section 2(1)(a) (ii)(iii) of the EFCC Act, any confirmation of the 4th defendant’s appointment made by the National Assembly is void and of no legal consequence,” Opatola prayed.
Olukoyede’s counsel, Olumide Fusika (SAN), raised a significant objection to the plaintiff’s suit. He argued that the plaintiff lacked the legal standing necessary to file the suit. Fusika maintained that his client, Olukoyede, served as the Secretary of the Commission, achieving a Grade Level 17 position. According to Fusika, this grade within the EFCC is superior to the rank of an Assistant Commissioner of Police.
The court then scheduled the case for judgment, focusing on the challenge against the EFCC Chairman’s appointment.
What the Judge Said
Delivering his judgment on Wednesday, Justice Egwatu addressed the critical issue of locus standi, which refers to the legal right to initiate a case. He emphasized that this concept is a fundamental prerequisite for any legal action brought before a court. Justice Egwatu articulated that the principle of locus standi serves to shield the court from being misused by individuals without a legitimate stake in the matter. He noted that it prevents the court from becoming “a playground for professional litigants, busybodies and meddlesome interlopers and cranks who have no real stake or interest in the subject matter of the litigation.”
The judge, after reviewing the submissions from both counsels and the court records, concluded that the plaintiff did not possess the necessary legal right to bring the suit. He described the plaintiff’s case as incompetent, categorizing it as the work of a busybody.
In light of this, Justice Egwatu stated that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit. He emphasized that the only appropriate order under such circumstances was to dismiss the case.
“Having held that the Plaintiff lacks the locus standi to institute this suit, this court concomitantly and or of necessity lacks the jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiff’s suit,” he declared. “The end result, as held in the case of Akande v. Jegede (supra), is that this suit must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. And it is dismissed for want of jurisdiction on the premise that the Plaintiff lacks locus standi to institute this suit,” the judge said.
The Federal High Court indeed has the jurisdiction to hear cases challenging actions of the government or any governmental arm. However, this judgment highlights the crucial element of locus standi in ensuring that only those with a legitimate interest in the case can bring forth such challenges. Importantly, parties dissatisfied with the court’s decision have the right to appeal, seeking further legal redress if they believe an error has been made in the judgment.
